Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Rudy overdoing it a bit | Main | New article on gun confiscation and genocide »

Take on HR 2640

Posted by David Hardy · 3 October 2007 09:44 AM

Military.com has this take on HR 2640, the bill relating to mental records and NICS.

Attorney Ev Nappen, whose pro-gun credentials are as solid as can be, has the same take.

I've read the complex bill, and see it as a help. (1) It doesn't add anyone to the prohibited person list who isn't already there. (2) At most, it increases the number of names in the list, which isn't a good thing, but since it's already a felony for those folks to possess a gun, it's hard to see how letting them get a gun, and then be subject to prosecution, is a good idea. This way they at least get alerted. (3) Most importantly, it lets people on the list for a mental committent get off the list, and has pretty broad standards for letting them do it. Right now, if a person has EVER been committed to an institution, they are barred for life. There's no restoration of rights, or even pardon, such as we have in the area of a felony conviction. I know two people who are in that position, committed for a few days many years ago, thoroughly upstanding and stable people today -- but without something like this, they're barred for life.

Hat tip to reader Jack Anderson...

16 Comments | Leave a comment

straightarrow | October 3, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply

(3) Most importantly, it lets people on the list for a mental committent get off the list, and has pretty broad standards for letting them do it. Right now, if a person has EVER been committed to an institution, they are barred for life. There's no restoration of rights, or even pardon, such as we have in the area of a felony conviction. I know two people who are in that position, committed for a few days many years ago, thoroughly upstanding and stable people today -- but without something like this, they're barred for life.- Dave

There is already a mechanism in place for just that purpose. Yet it has remain unfunded since the law was passed, while other parts of it are active.

What about this bill makes you think there will be a magical change take place to honor the sop they throw us here, when they have steadfastly refused to honor that same sop we already traded for?

thirdpower | October 3, 2007 11:37 AM | Reply

Yes, SA, we know that. So at worst, the status quo remains the same. At best, a chance is given.

So which category does Dave, Ev Nappen, and Larry Scott fall under?

gattsuru | October 3, 2007 1:02 PM | Reply

I think it'll add a lot of folk onto the prohibited persons list that aren't already there.

Pretend you're an antigun VA psychologist (but I repeat myself), and are now no longer have to worry about HIPAA violations for sending psych records to the FBI for NICS. You are encouraged to do so, not only as your group and state risks reduced funding if you don't do so, but also as a false negative would screw your career.

Tell me, do you expect to see only those who actually would be prohibited under the GCA on the list? Or every single decision that could even remotely resemble a prohibition?

It's nice that we'd have a chance to get the old records expunged, but that doesn't justify getting hundreds of thousands of new records put in place, especially when getting off the list requires proving a negative to either the folk that put you on the list in the first place or a District Court, neither of which tend to be that friendly to our side.

gattsuru | October 3, 2007 1:04 PM | Reply

At the worst case, Thirdpower, hundreds of thousands of generally innocent people will be wrongly added to the NICS, with only the very rich or politically connected having a chance in hell of getting their rights returned.

thirdpower | October 3, 2007 1:52 PM | Reply

Which they can do already.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

gattsuru | October 3, 2007 2:25 PM | Reply

They try it now, they'll be facing HIPAA attacks up the wazoo -- it's only lawful to provide that information if the Attorney General asks for it, right now.

But nice try, Thirdpower.

straightarrow | October 3, 2007 3:06 PM | Reply

Since I don't think they are dishonest, I think they may be naive through lack of attention to the history of execution of such broadly written law.

Tell me, Third, just who are these "others" that will be authorized to make the decision to add someone to the list? Wouldn't you like to know that?

David McCleary | October 4, 2007 7:28 AM | Reply

I think this is another compromise that is going to create more problems. Sure they are adding a provision to "allow" people on the list to get off the list but it will cost money and time and like the felony provision it can just be defunded. Nope-- not for me. I think people and NRA should follow Aaron Zelman's advice and stop compromising.

http://jpfo.org/speech.htm

I also have a difficult time with the concept of letting Physiologists determine who can and cannot have a firearm. Quite frankly most of them (from my experience) think that most people have some type of mental problem ie depression and are also anti gun.

MichaelG | October 4, 2007 12:14 PM | Reply

You all are right but missing the point. The definitions that are critical are based on Federal regs that can be changed without congressional or judicial oversight. See http://www.pgnh.org/enough_nra_bashing for the details of the current regs. And if you think that won't happen consider BATFE rules. As usual the devil is in the details or in this case the underpinnings. Somebody explain to me how I'm wrong please.

straightarrow | October 4, 2007 8:55 PM | Reply

Michael G. you are not wrong. The agency charged with the execution and enforcement of the bill should it become law will be the ones who right the regulations which carry the force of law. I didn't mention it, because I thought it was so damn obvious that everybody would know it and understand that is one of the reasons we objectors object. And your use of the BATFE is absolutely spot on.

straightarrow | October 7, 2007 3:23 PM | Reply

Read here211 by Nicki Fellenzer and tell then try to tell yourself this will never happen. Remembering all the time about how TRO's are routinely abused for leverage in divorce, etc.

straightarrow | October 7, 2007 3:24 PM | Reply

Ok, didn't work, lets try this, go read the article at The Liberty Zone on this issue.

straightarrow | October 7, 2007 3:26 PM | Reply

here211

straightarrow | October 7, 2007 3:26 PM | Reply

Damn!!!

Notsosure | October 9, 2007 8:58 PM | Reply

am not sure that PTSD causes violence, as women as well as men get PTSD and other mental disorders but very few of the violent episodes have been done by women. They are almost all being done by men. Could it be the way we raise them? There is something else at play here other than mental illness otherwise women would be just as guilty since they get mental illness too.

Joe | October 9, 2007 10:41 PM | Reply

No sane person wants to see see some wacko injure, maim, or kill anyone, whether its with a firearm, a knife, or a Lincoln Continental.
That being said the question is who and how is someone declared incompetent or a threat to others.

Before anyone supports this bill you better look real hard at how your state makes these decisions. Up until very recently in my state, all it took to get a person committted was for a reasonably close relative to fill out an affidavit delaring you to be a threat to yourself or others or incompetent to handle your affairs and present it to a sympathetic judge. If the judge decided in favor of committing (HINT: you have just been ADJUDICATED)you were toast. No automatic right to a hearing. You could apply for one IF you could find an attorney willing to risk not getting paid, since getting committed pretty much lost you access to your assets. Now there is a mandatory hearing …. afterwards, but until and if the previous ruling is overturned you have still been adjudicated a mental case.

Think about that REAL HARD!!!

Then think about HR 2640 getting passed….and going through a messy divorce or child custody fight. If you haven’t noticed there are a lot of places where divorce attorneys file a TPO with the divorce filing just as a matter of course. In most place having a TPO filed means you lose your guns or the right to buy a gun at least until the order is lifted.
Now any reasonable, competent, ethical, non-politically driven judge isnt going to go along with this. What are the chances you are going to get one????

Leave a comment